Epstein Secrets

stein, and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust'. Lepone 305 F.3d 1 (I' Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impendi

ould have consulted with her attorney regarding the CVRA lawsuit mentioned in the September 3, 2008 letter.3 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe

and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, it is 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did n

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe